Straw polls in the wind suggest that the more dedicated London Liberal Democrats strongly favour Mike Tuffrey AM becoming their candidate for next year's mayoral mud wrestle. Party members as a whole would be very daft indeed not to take heed. There are about 9,000 in the metropolis of whom, I'm advised, around a third are expected to take part in the one member, one vote election. A shortlist will be drawn up on Sunday and the result is scheduled to be announced on August 12. Anything other than a Tuffrey victory would only increase the army of electors wishing to feed Nick Clegg's party to the crocodiles.

I mention this not merely because I know the precise and experienced Tuffrey would hold his own in any platform dust-up with Boris and Ken, but also because Lib Dem activists who don't pay close attention to what goes on at City Hall might be swayed by giggly media characterisations of the selection process as a contest of contrasts between shiny-bright, well-known Lembit and dull, unknown ex-accountant Mike. I sympathise with the evil journalistic instincts at work, for it is true that Tuffrey lacks the slightest trace of the celebrity profile widely held to be a prerequisite of mayoral candidacy. But neither man would stand much chance of winning, so it's a question of the best way to come third.

Long, long ago people who despised Liberal Democrats did so not only because they considered them a bunch of ruthless opportunists without a principle between them. They did so because they considered them a bunch of ruthless opportunists without a principle between them who were egotistical eccentrics too. Why revive the full back-catalogue of contempt when you can limit it to the modern kind? And with Tuffrey in the spotlight for a few months, you might even repair some of the damage.

Brian Paddick, who fought a valiant losing battle for the Lib Dems in 2008, has been talking of having another go. He played the "serious" card against Boris and Ken. The theory was that voters would see him as a more credible challenger to Livingstone than the frivolous Johnson. It didn't work, but it might well have been the best card in his hand.

Tuffrey has been playing the "serious" card against Opik, and he'd probably play it better in the big race next year than Paddick could a second time around. Paddick also trimmed to the right in policy terms in an effort to attract Conservatives. I can't see Tuffrey doing that, and neither should he. The aim of the Lib Dems' 2012 campaign must surely be to salvage a bit of solid credibility from the ruin the party's reputation has fallen into since joining the coalition. That's why Tuffrey has to be their man.